This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Regis, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[46] we ruled that an action for forcible entry cannot be treated as an accion publiciana and summarized the reasons therefor. We find these same reasons also applicable to an unlawful detainer case which bears the same relevant characteristics: On the issue of whether or not an action for forcible entry can be treated as accion publiciana, we rule in the negative. Forcible entry is distinct from accion publiciana. First, forcible entry should be filed within one year from the unlawful dispossession of the real property, while accion publiciana is filed a year after the unlawful dispossession of the real property. Second, forcible entry is concerned with the issue of the right to the physical possession of the real property; in accion publiciana, what is subject of litigation is the better right to possession over the real property. Third, an action for forcible entry is filed in the municipal trial court and is a summary action, while accion publiciana is a plenary action in the RTC. [italics supplied] | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| First, forcible entry should be filed within one year from the unlawful dispossession of the real property, while accion publiciana is filed a year after the unlawful dispossession of the real property. Second, forcible entry is concerned with the issue of the right to the physical possession of the real property; in accion publiciana, what is subject of litigation is the better right to possession over the real property. Third, an action for forcible entry is filed in the municipal trial court and is a summary action, while accion publiciana is a plenary action in the RTC.[24] | |||||